Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130209
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
>> i think there was, and out of the hearing, i felt a significant less support for the feinstein build and i thought there was going into it. that could change. we're going to have more hearings later on. i felt that. another thing i felt was the other people participating were all could authorities in their area. and a lot of information came out that will be very valuable to you. i had to anyone think i think is going to be most difficult to deal with but is something we definitely have to deal with is the mental health issues and reporting to the data base. we also have to deal with all the felonies. when the mental health issue is so important because in the case of virginia tech, tucson, and colorado is an issue in all of those killings. >> can i ask you specifically what gave you the sense that the portions of the feinstein 3 gb support on the feinstein amendment had diminished? >> i think there was information came out in the meeting that would make it less supported. let me back up a little bit. i will be very clear with you. i feel an outright ban is going to have a diff
. dianne feinstein said she will look into new legislation to govern overseas strikes. there was an interruption by protesters. it is three and a half hours. >> you are a disgrace to democracy. >> if the police will clear the room, please. will clear the room, please. [indiscernible] [shouting continues] >> [indiscernible] please clear the room. >> [indiscernible] please clear the room. [protest continues] all right, i think we should clear the entire room and then let people back in. what do you think? >> we need more capital police. >> yeah, let's -- [indiscernible] ok, we will try and start. ok, we will i am going to began this -- begin this hearing, and let me say right up front that the process is that people are respectful, that they do not shout, they do not hiss, they do not show signs, that this is to listen. if that is a problem for anybody, i ask you to leave their room now. -- the room now. what we will do is remove you from the room. let there be no doubt. so if i may, i would like to begin. the committee meets today in open session to consider the nominat
support senator feinstein's assault weapons ban legislation. federal law prohibits dangerous individuals such as convicted felons and those with mental health this qualifiers for possessing firearms. background checks are required on dealers, no check is required for private sales such as those for online or print ads or gun shows. is a major problem. from november, 2011-november, 2012, an estimated 16.6 million transactions occurred without a background check. this occurs for private individuals rather than licensed gun dealers. it allows 40 percent of those requiring guns to bypass checks, it is like allowing 40% of passengers to board a plan without going through security. would we do this? last october in brookfield, wisconsin, seven women were shot by present -- by a prohibited purchaser was under a restraining order. the shooter answered an online ad was able to buy a gun without a check of very quickly. had the sale been required to have a check, the tragedy could have been prevented. background checks work. they stop nearly 2 million prohibited purchasers between 1994-2009. we al
the remington shotgun, senator feinstein's bill would outlaw that shotgun if it has a seven- round magazine on it. it comes with a five-round magazine. you can extend it. the bill would outlaw that standard home defense shotgun, if it had a seven-round magazine. it is all fine to talk about novelty items on the fringe, like 100-round drums, but at practice, what does the threat of being a law, when people are using standard capacity handgun magazines and standard capacities for rifles and shotguns. >> what are the law-abiding citizens doing with these? what are the lawful purposes to which law-abiding citizens are using these guns? >> self-defense, target shooting, all of which are purposes lawful for having a firearm. and in regards to the extra training the police officers have. i represented the two police training organizations in the supreme court and i would certainly agree that the police have more training for all kinds of reasons, including having the power to effectuate arrests, which ordinary citizens do not. in the view of the training organizations, they believe the training th
remove that woman. >> senator feinstein -- [indiscernible] >> please proceed. mr. brennan, the next time we will clear the chamber and bring people back in one by one. this witness is entitled to be heard, ladies and gentlemen, so please give him that opportunity. >> thank you. a thank you ghost of my family in new jersey, especially my --ndmomother [indiscernible] >> alright, which are run to halt the hearing. i am gone to ask that the room be cleared and that the code pink associates not be permitted to come back in. it has been done five times now, and five times is enough. so we will recess for a few minutes. [applause] [indiscernible] all right. ladies and gentlemen, if you would mind leaving, we will then have you come back in, but it is the only way i think we are going to stop this. we will recess for a few minutes. [indiscernible] john? john? [indiscernible] [indiscernible] left [indiscernible] >> ok, we will reconvene the hearing. mr. brennan, please proceed. >> thank you. i was talking about my parents. , my father, who raised my sister, brother, and i, chairs the opportunity
who is are reading. >> that is senator feinstein and there is another hearing on tuesday which will be classified. we go to the republican line. caller: i'm impressed with the quality of this candidate. i'm grateful for his education and there is no comparison between the quality of this man and chuck hagel. they are in different sandboxes. i'm very grateful for people like this who we desperately need in times like this. >> we go to the independent line. this is doug, welcome to the conversation. caller: thanks for taking my call and thanks to c-span. i think the only one that had any sanity and knew the questions that were going to be asked. we did not get any answers to them. how is the decision made? what are the requirements? the independent said we should have a court that regardless who the president is they should not have a unilateral way to document nominate someone. people in this country don't know about the mddaa, the national defense thorgs act which allows the president to designate a person who he feels is a terrorist or supporting terrorist organizations to dep
interrogation techniques. the targeted killing program and the use of drones. diane feinstein gavels in the hearing after an interruption from protesters. >> i ask that this room be cleared right now with the capitol police -- will the capitol police please come in and clear a room? -- clear the room? all signs out. if the capitol police will clear a room, please. [indiscernible] >> please clear the room. please clear the room. all right. we should clear the entire room and let people back in. >> we need more capitol police is what we need. will trylet's -- we and start. [gavel] >> begin this hearing and let me say right up front that the process is that people are respectful, that they cannot tear, they do not hiss, they do not show signs. this is to listen. if that is a problem for anybody ask you to leave the room now. because what we will do is remove you from the room. let there be no doubt. so if i may, i would like to begin. the committee meets today in open session to consider the nomination of john brennan to be the 21st director of the central intelligence agency and the fi
neighbor -- i always like to say dianne feinstein is my neighbor, but i point out it is at work. she works in the offices as opposed to home. she works next to me, and she is working very hard on that piece of the bill, and knows very well what you are talking about representing the state of california. working with senator rubio and others on that bill. i know they are in the middle of negotiations so i do not want to put words in her mouth, but i know that the family concern is a piece. >> it is interesting that the afl-cio have a very proactive, progressive position on this and are out advertising and moving that now. i asked senator mccain. he said, they are in exactly the same place. this is important. it is a larger picture where seemingly fighting pieces, kennedy and others with his early legislation, there is more goodwill to try to move this forward. >> it would be in a bigger bill. i think it is a good thing we have these two bills that are arguably complicated but do separate things. the agriculture workers and the one with senator hatch, the expert bill. they are completely rel
in knowing what is happening. senator dianne feinstein, democrat from california, had an exchange. let's listen. [video clip] >> i would like to ask you about the status of the administration's effort to institutionalize rules and procedures for the conduct of drones strikes. in particular, how you see your role as cia director in the approval process. >> as of this committee knows, and i am sure once to continue to protect certain covert action activities. but let me talk generally about the counter-terrorism program and the role of the cia and its effort to try to institutionalize and ensure we have as rigorous a process as possible. that we feel we are taking the appropriate action at the appropriate time. the president insisted any action we take will be legally grounded, will be thoroughly anchored in intelligence. will have the appropriate review process, approval process before any action is contemplated, including those actions that might involve the use of lethal force. the different parts of the government involved in the process are part of the interagency and as terrorism -
example. senator feinstein's subcommittee -- she had a hearing last year. general cartwright and admiral pickering -- or ambassador pickering testified, and they went into this. any action we would take would have to be negotiated, it would have to be bilateral, no unilateral action, and they made that point again on the record in front of senator feinstein's subcommittee. and i support that. i agree with that. >> i have another statement from the report. the united states icbm rapid reaction posture remains in operation and runs a real risk of accidental or mistaken launch. i think that statement is pretty clear. do you agree with that? >> yes. i mean, i the accidental launch and those kinds of things are always to be concerned about, and we need to assure as we have over the years that that does not happen, but on the russian -- >> that we will run a real risk of accident or mistaken launch? >> if you put just "risk," but there's always a risk. when we are talking about nuclear weapons, and the consequences, as you know, you do not get a lot of second chances. we need to be very sure a
guns. have you looked at the feinstein bill? that is exactly what he has done. i think of what they will do is turn this universal check on the law-abiding into a universal registry of law-abiding people, law abiding people do not want that. >> forgive me, sir, you take something that is here and say that it will go all the way over there. there is no indication. i can understand that you are saying that that is the threat, but nothing from the -- but nothing from the administration indicates that. >> obama care was not a tax until they needed to be a tax. >> that was the supreme court. host: weighing in on the conversation, the financial crisis, did it delay your retirement? on twitter you can participate as well. host: let's hear from sandra in virginia. hello. caller: i am the wife of a retired pastor. he is not retired, we cannot retire. because when the crash happened, we received notice from our retirement fund that in order for them to serve everyone, they were going to cut everyone, so we got a cut from 2100 per month to 1600 per month. my husband has to continue workin
. this is prior to the law. senator feinstein suggested if they could get registered, they could have forced buybacks. in modern times, there are two other reasons why you do not want a federal registry. one was in new york and someone got a hold of the list. the results have been not good. there was a time when all of the best motives on the part of the government. they could take a list and lock it in the vault and be secure. we cannot even secure national defense secrets now. the arts are that if we kept that registry -- and it is illegal now. if you go to the system, they can check you but they cannot keep the record. it is checked and then there is no cost to canada had a big registry but they just stopped it because it did not do anything. in the 60's and the 80's, people had to keep track of ammunition sales. finally the government said this makes no sense because ammunition is a commodity and that does not do any good. it takes tons and tons of paperwork to look at it. the question is what works and what doesn't work. >> you mentioned that there are plenty of democrats who were membe
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)